Should commercial ventures and estates in SL be allowed to discriminate?

[Hunter Stern]

3 hours ago, iamyourneighbour said:

It is their private property they should be able to choose who they allow. 

If you force integration you won't make neither side happy, and you will eventually go full circle and become who you claim to fight, just like how D*** March Chicago expelled Jews from their march, and called them 'Zio' on tweeter (which was ironically, a word pioneered by David Duke)

Public space is for everyone, private property isn't.

 

and I agree on the matter of Private Property.

When a business of any sort , though, advertises on public channels including but not limited to Destinations and other Linden Endorsed bodies, then that does raise the question and feasibility of Opt in and Opt out which from the time I started SL and was advertising my Avatars at Welcome areas , it was clear and pronounced to me, even by Linden Lab , that my advertising at public venues was perfectly fine as long as it A. followed the Opt in Opt out formula B. Was PG in it's presentation, and C. Was not spamming or obstructing (see A.).

So the question is then: When is Private Business , Private and when does it enter into the realm of public and possible scrutiny.

No I am not trying to beat a dead horse or have a clear answer(and I appreciate all the views and perspective people have given thus far) but I would rather it be us the residents that look at this , instead of LL one day handing it to us in their version unannounced like so many other policy changes. Atleast this way they might know what some of the feelings are on the topic before they do consider serious policy (regardless of how one feels). SL is not a democracy.

[Paul Hexem]

24 minutes ago, Hunter Stern said:

and I agree on the matter of Private Property.

When a business of any sort , though, advertises on public channels including but not limited to Destinations and other Linden Endorsed bodies, then that does raise the question and feasibility of Opt in and Opt out which from the time I started SL and was advertising my Avatars at Welcome areas , it was clear and pronounced to me, even by Linden Lab , that my advertising at public venues was perfectly fine as long as it A. followed the Opt in Opt out formula B. Was PG in it's presentation, and C. Was not spamming or obstructing (see A.).

So the question is then: When is Private Business , Private and when does it enter into the realm of public and possible scrutiny.

No I am not trying to beat a dead horse or have a clear answer(and I appreciate all the views and perspective people have given thus far) but I would rather it be us the residents that look at this , instead of LL one day handing it to us in their version unannounced like so many other policy changes. Atleast this way they might know what some of the feelings are on the topic before they do consider serious policy (regardless of how one feels). SL is not a democracy.

Asked and answered.

Business property is still private property, especially in SL.

[Love Zhaoying]

2 hours ago, Gadget Portal said:

Asked and answered.

Business property is still private property, especially in SL.

But SL businesses are open 24/7, usually with no “gatekeeper” to control who comes “inside” or on the property. Sounds awfully “public”. Compare with a RL farmer’s market, flea market, garage sale, county fair where owners can “ask someone to leave” but not prevent them from coming on the property in the first place (without security or ticket-takers).

[Callum Meriman]

2 hours ago, Hunter Stern said:

I would rather it be us the residents that look at this , instead of LL one day handing it to us in their version unannounced like so many other policy changes. Atleast this way they might know what some of the feelings are on the topic before they do consider serious policy (regardless of how one feels). 

I doubt the Lab have ever considered the residents views when making their rules.

Think back to the OpenSpace debacle. If they need to do something they will just do it, no matter how huge the impact.

[Paul Hexem]

18 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

But SL businesses are open 24/7, usually with no “gatekeeper” to control who comes “inside” or on the property. Sounds awfully “public”. Compare with a RL farmer’s market, flea market, garage sale, county fair where owners can “ask someone to leave” but not prevent them from coming on the property in the first place (without security or ticket-takers).

True, but you could theoretically use scripts, bots, hire people, or simply make use of the ban list, group only, and so on.

[Love Zhaoying]

46 minutes ago, Gadget Portal said:

True, but you could theoretically use scripts, bots, hire people, or simply make use of the ban list, group only, and so on.

Scripts and bots can’t tell if the offending avatar has the “wrong” skin color, is LGBT, is a furry, etc. Only the avatar’s “payment info on file”, right? (And same-group membership, of course.)

[Paul Hexem]

14 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Scripts and bots can’t tell if the offending avatar has the “wrong” skin color, is LGBT, is a furry, etc. Only the avatar’s “payment info on file”, right? (And same-group membership, of course.)

It can tell some stuff. It can check male/female, some of what you're wearing, things like that. All with some degree of accuracy. I don't know why you'd want to, but you can.

[Paul Hexem]

Somewhat relevant:

 

[Hunter Stern]

3 hours ago, Gadget Portal said:

Asked and answered.

Business property is still private property, especially in SL.

Who asked and Who Answered? in the Answers Forum? In this thread?

but still that is vague. Are we talking tangible inworld structures or actions and service agreements which are a different thing. You don't need a land piece of property in order to operate a business in SL either. There are blacklist scripts out there too, I could make up any list of names of people I find objectionable for whatever reason and simply ban them from purchasing from me, including banning them on basis of one of the protected rl class. I would not get caught in this either in most cases, but if I am advertising this on a public channel then it is more readily known my position and opertation in business, yes?

It has nothing to do with morals quite frankly , but simple business ethics. For me to look at someone creating and selling something and marching around as if they were a the best of the best but they don't adhere to any ethics outside of their own or SLs, leaves me feeling as if I've been invited to Nancy's Dress up Pageant at Suzzy's fun House. It's just make believe though so don't mind the fact that real money does come into play whether it be the customer putting forth rl $$ into buying Linden $ or turning said profit into rl $. You are given a choice when sellings things in SL, if you make enough say to pay for a sim each month on your business, then yes I can imagine it is going to probably be a substantial cashout since last I checked , I was not able to pay for a sim in L$, thus that may be adequate earned income. otherwise you don't cash out, but buy strictly items in SL with said earnings. How then can I call anyone a 'real' merchant if they only apply it when it's convenient for them? This is , I feel, something the Lab does need to look into , not a 'Should' (no one likes to be told what they 'Should' do in business).

And didn't someone on this thread state that 'Zoopanky' was legal in SL? well apparently the sale of 'Zoopanky' paraphernalia is not according to 'someones' dictates since many of those products got pulled off Marketplace, and that is not clearly defined in the ToS or CS to this day, yet action was taken on it and yes with the varying rules and laws around the world at that. I suppose that means discrimination is legal too as long as the people state that it is make believe.

The question again "Should Commerical Ventures (not Venues as in locations) be allowed to discriminate" on any grounds that might not be in line with other requirements? This is much like the 'Right to Work' states in the US where an employer can fire you for any reason and no reason given. People still have the right to challenge it though, but that doesn't make it a good policy from some peoples point of view.

here are just a few examples of this type of topic:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/avatar-acts/

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/03/facebook-ad-discrimination/518718/

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=402860

 

Edited January 8, 2018 by Hunter Stern

[Luna Bliss]

8 hours ago, iamyourneighbour said:

If you force integration you won't make neither side happy,

I think the blacks who are now allowed to sit on the bus anywhere they damm well please are much happier, or even be able to SIT on a bus at all, as often they had to stand if no seats where available at the back of the bus -- even when there were open seats at the front of the bus.

[Solar Legion]

Outside of Second Life, examine your local laws or consult a lawyer.

Inside Second Life/on their servers, consult the Terms of Service, Community Guidelines and other Linden Lab documents that may be applicable. Enforcement of any part of these is up to the discretion of whichever Linden happens to view the report/complaint or stumble across your content.

We can debate ethics/morality until the cows come home but so far as the situation within Second Life is concerned ... That's all there is to know.

[Paul Hexem]

1 hour ago, Hunter Stern said:

Who asked and Who Answered? in the Answers Forum? In this thread?

but still that is vague. Are we talking tangible inworld structures or actions and service agreements which are a different thing. You don't need a land piece of property in order to operate a business in SL either. There are blacklist scripts out there too, I could make up any list of names of people I find objectionable for whatever reason and simply ban them from purchasing from me, including banning them on basis of one of the protected rl class. I would not get caught in this either in most cases, but if I am advertising this on a public channel then it is more readily known my position and opertation in business, yes?

It has nothing to do with morals quite frankly , but simple business ethics. For me to look at someone creating and selling something and marching around as if they were a the best of the best but they don't adhere to any ethics outside of their own or SLs, leaves me feeling as if I've been invited to Nancy's Dress up Pageant at Suzzy's fun House. It's just make believe though so don't mind the fact that real money does come into play whether it be the customer putting forth rl $$ into buying Linden $ or turning said profit into rl $. You are given a choice when sellings things in SL, if you make enough say to pay for a sim each month on your business, then yes I can imagine it is going to probably be a substantial cashout since last I checked , I was not able to pay for a sim in L$, thus that may be adequate earned income. otherwise you don't cash out, but buy strictly items in SL with said earnings. How then can I call anyone a 'real' merchant if they only apply it when it's convenient for them? This is , I feel, something the Lab does need to look into , not a 'Should' (no one likes to be told what they 'Should' do in business).

And didn't someone on this thread state that 'Zoopanky' was legal in SL? well apparently the sale of 'Zoopanky' paraphernalia is not according to 'someones' dictates since many of those products got pulled off Marketplace, and that is not clearly defined in the ToS or CS to this day, yet action was taken on it and yes with the varying rules and laws around the world at that. I suppose that means discrimination is legal too as long as the people state that it is make believe.

The question again "Should Commerical Ventures (not Venues as in locations) be allowed to discriminate" on any grounds that might not be in line with other requirements? This is much like the 'Right to Work' states in the US where an employer can fire you for any reason and no reason given. People still have the right to challenge it though, but that doesn't make it a good policy from some peoples point of view.

here are just a few examples of this type of topic:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/avatar-acts/

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/03/facebook-ad-discrimination/518718/

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=402860

 

Right here in this thread. The relevant laws have been pointed out, and the TOS is available for everyone. If LL changes that and starts forcing people to allow "protected avatars" on to parcels, that'll be business suicide.

 

48 minutes ago, Solar Legion said:

Outside of Second Life, examine your local laws or consult a lawyer.

Inside Second Life/on their servers, consult the Terms of Service, Community Guidelines and other Linden Lab documents that may be applicable. Enforcement of any part of these is up to the discretion of whichever Linden happens to view the report/complaint or stumble across your content.

We can debate ethics/morality until the cows come home but so far as the situation within Second Life is concerned ... That's all there is to know.

Exactly.

[Love Zhaoying]

29 minutes ago, Gadget Portal said:

If LL changes that and starts forcing people to allow "protected avatars" on to parcels, that'll be business suicide.

*Ahem* Linden avatars can go anywhere they please.

[Solar Legion]

19 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

*Ahem* Linden avatars can go anywhere they please.

Which is neither here nor there. The Linden Surname is essentially analogous to Administrator and carries the associated privileges.

[Love Zhaoying]

1 hour ago, Solar Legion said:

Which is neither here nor there. The Linden Surname is essentially analogous to Administrator and carries the associated privileges.

Exactly my point, they are a “protected class”.

[Solar Legion]

20 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Exactly my point, they are a “protected class”.

You responded to a post by bringing up System Administrator accounts - a post which was not at all talking about Administrator level access.

Your point in regard to the post you'd responded to is moot and utterly misses the point that was being made.

ETA: Yes, I'm splitting hairs here.

Edited January 8, 2018 by Solar Legion

[Love Zhaoying]

32 minutes ago, Solar Legion said:

You responded to a post by bringing up System Administrator accounts - a post which was not at all talking about Administrator level access.

Your point in regard to the post you'd responded to is moot and utterly misses the point that was being made.

ETA: Yes, I'm splitting hairs here.

LOL! They're avatars, nonetheless. You should be a hair stylist!

[Hunter Stern]

3 hours ago, Love Zhaoying said:

*Ahem* Linden avatars can go anywhere they please.

and you can also ban said Lindens at any time for valid infractions of violating their Employee to Interaction with Residents agreements. It's not online anymore, but you can request it from the offices for further clarification I believe. I do not discriminate against any Linden though, they all know I'm an equal opportunity offender

 

Edited January 8, 2018 by Hunter Stern

[Love Zhaoying]

15 hours ago, Hunter Stern said:

and you can also ban said Lindens at any time for valid infractions of violating their Employee to Interaction with Residents agreements. It's not online anymore, but you can request it from the offices for further clarification I believe. I do not discriminate against any Linden though, they all know I'm an equal opportunity offender

 

That would be weird, if a Linden offended someone that much!

[Callum Meriman]

16 hours ago, Hunter Stern said:

and you can also ban said Lindens at any time for valid infractions of violating their Employee to Interaction with Residents agreements

 

Except that the ban tools don't work on them. 

Hmm, come to think of it there might be a time-gaining loophole here... Set the land to damage and snowball-gun kill them, they should go to their home.

[Callum Meriman]

23 hours ago, Gadget Portal said:

It can tell some stuff. It can check male/female, some of what you're wearing, things like that. All with some degree of accuracy. I don't know why you'd want to, but you can.

Male/Female isn't a great determination of SL gender. For example it's a 100% fail on all those males who wear the Maitreya body with the v-tech boi chest.

[Drake1 Nightfire]

3 hours ago, Callum Meriman said:

Male/Female isn't a great determination of SL gender. For example it's a 100% fail on all those males who wear the Maitreya body with the v-tech boi chest.

And a lot of non human mesh avs use the female body for a male mesh.. 

[Prokofy Neva]

On 12/31/2017 at 6:45 AM, Hunter Stern said:

I have done some searching (after running into yet another random sim as advertising itself to only allow one gender). The reason I bring this up is because after reviewing the CS and Tos and Linden Policy links, NOTHING is truly covered other than adhering to state and federal statues where they may apply to that region , also the fact that Linden Lab Inc. is still bound by state and federal law under jurisdiction of the State of California.

Now those technicalities out of the way, let me give you a picture  of what I feel I have encountered (and not just recently) but over a span of a decade in Second Life.

There are various sims as we all know that are advertised as Female AV only, and Male AV only, or Human only or Furry only , etc. the 'Only' part being important here. If I were to open a sim or business in SL with the intent of making returnable revenue through cash out and I advertised my establishment as whites only , do you seriously think I would or should be allowed IF and I say, IF my business is recognized as a public venture with within full scope of search and advertising , not limited to but also the Second Life Marketplace page?

I went to a sim tonight that was advertised as female only and it states clearly it is for women only as a mall, and upon further inspection yes , they have advertised services for apparel to name just one of those content services offered, (I suppose they have never heard of a guy window shopping for a gift idea or even for himself ).

So as it stands now , discrimination at public (technically all businesses on search are deemed public) is allowed.

Is this something Second Life should uphold or is there some correction that should be made? I do realize that ones private residence is not subject to the same rules as commercial ventures (especially if they also are not advertised in search)?

Do we as residents truly have the right to exclusivity , when we already agreed to a Tos and CS which are in conflict with such exclusivity on the basis of 'Intolerance' ?

Personally for me, if I go to someones private home and they ask that I be a specific gender to enter, that is their prerogative as per privacy and personal space in SL, and I can choose to simply not go. But if it is an adverised location and business, I do feel that those business's should be subject to a higher standard like many things that real law and statues effect.

Maybe I'm wrong in my feelings on this (I'm not one as of late for Social Justice agenda's personally) but I don't (or haven't seen) the topic brought to a better light or focus , since we do discuss various policies and norms in SL and how it effects our day to day in SL as active residents.

While LL is a private company and can do what it wants in a sense, it is bound by federal anti-discrimination laws, but they don't apply to furries.

You might to take a look at actual jurisprudence on this issue, however.

Look at Boy Scouts of America Supreme Court decision which ruled that a private club -- which is what the Boy Scouts are -- can decide not to allow gays to be their members.

That is the principles of freedom of association cannot be trumped by the First Amendment. To ensure the First Amendment, you have to ensure the right of freedom of association.

The government cannot force a private club to accept a member on the grounds of sexual preference, although if that private club refused to allow blacks, then they might be forced to obey federal law. It's not as cut and dry as you think. LGBT lobbied the Boy Scouts to accept gays and the lawsuit approach didn't work, only moral campaigns and boycotts worked.

There was an argument to be made that Boy Scouts using public properties like schools, or religious properties like churches, should be compelled to follow federal law. But that logic didn't win the lawsuit.

I personally believe that you can't discriminate in rentals in SL and you have to be open to anyone who pays your rental box and abides by your rules on prims or heavy scripts, say, regardless of their lifestyle.

I make an exception on child avatars simply because over the years through numerous personal experiences, I found a very high correlation between the child avatar population and child pornography, which is against SL and RL law. I'm simply unwilling to argue about this and make exceptions and have benefits of the doubt when I have found too much prevarication on this topic. 

I can see where a lesbian club, for example, simply don't want men there because men come as voyeurs in many cases. So I think they should have that right to choose whom they accept as members or visitors.

Edited January 19, 2018 by Prokofy Neva

[Hunter Stern]

4 hours ago, Prokofy Neva said:

I can see where a lesbian club, for example, simply don't want men there because men come as voyeurs in many cases. So I think they should have that right to choose whom they accept as members or visitors.

This isn't really the issue, trust me , there are plenty of so called women only lesbian clubs in SL that get their share of 'Sisters' parading around taking in the sights of the 'Cabana'. The issue does come up though when applied to such things as advertising using public features (like Destinations Guide and Marketplace, as was pointed out earlier) through an entity such as 'The Lab' which does not allow segregation overall in many cases of public areas which they control and also features which they control. I suppose people just need to get sneakier and more creative in their wording when excluding genders or persons that might still fall under certain protections afforded by rl law and by the ToS and CS.

So we might word this as "Can people put discriminatory rules into their mode of advertising and display and marketing"? and I do mean places like clothing stores (ANY) as well as public spaces such as adult HUBs but still owned by Linden Lab but those that afford advertising space such as  Luna for example.

[Love Zhaoying]

3 hours ago, Hunter Stern said:

'Sisters' parading around taking in the sights of the 'Cabana'.

Reminds me of the RL Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, which is gay men in white-face nun drag (they do this for AIDS charities).